|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 21, 2007 22:47:53 GMT -8
Dawkins, author of the book "The God Delusion", is a scientist, a professor at the University of Oxford, and, of course, an atheist. He believes that those who believe in God must prove their case. Atheists, he says, have nothing to prove. This is the atheists "default position". Dawkins further states that by objective scientific experimentation, God can be disproved.
McGrath, author of the book "The Dawkins Delusion", is not only a scientist in Molecular Bio Physics, but is also an expert in Historical Theology and Philosophy. He is also a professor at the University of Oxford. I often wondered what these two men say to each other between classes.
McGrath disagrees with Dawkins on a number of points. One point is that God is not a scientific object and He cannot be proven or disproven this way. In other words, scientific experimentation will never prove or disprove God.
Another point of difference that McGrath has with Dawkins is that atheists must say "we don't know", "we need to be persuaded one way or the other". Therefore the default position for the atheists is to say "I'm not sure". It is not, as Dawkins contends,
by saying "Atheists have nothing to Prove".
Dawkins is under an obligation to show that there is 'no' God as a Christian is to show there 'is' a God.
Dawkins has failed to show in his book some very powerful points which make his position look very weak. Dawkins, the scientist, has failed to understand that science actually changes. What scientist believe to be true in the past has been shown to be wrong or has been overtaken by subsequent theoretical development. Dawkins is very reluctant to concede radical theory or change in science. How can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself, so to speak, in in motion or in transit?
Another point which Dawkins says nothing about is one of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development. That is, seeing a pattern in scientific development, and then, in order to explain these patterns, propose that at some time in the future the very thing that will explain these patterns will be observed. Once this unknown thing can be observed, it will explain everything that can be observed about the developments.
Now we can't prove that there is a God, but He makes an awful lot of sense of things, therefore there is a very good reason to suppose that God does indeed exist. This is a good and traditional scientific method which shows that God can very well exist.
McGrath explains that the God Delusion is extremely aggressive, it is very dismissive. It stereotypes those who believe in God. It recycles old atheistic positions, many of which are discredited.
The God delusion is aimed at people that are very ignorant or people that have a very prejudiced opinion of religious believers.
Oddly enough many of the atheists are very concerned by the book because it is dependant on misrepresentation, misunderstandings, and so forth. Most of Dawkins critics have come from the atheistic community. They feel that he is doing them a very bad turn. He is portraying atheism as extremely ignorant and prejudicial.
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 21, 2007 23:28:44 GMT -8
Did you write this yourself Cataracts? I hope that you copy/pasted it because you have absolutely no god damned idea what you're talking about.
In other words, scientific experimentation will never prove or disprove God.
Dawkins flat out states this many times in his book and in numerous interviews. Furthermore, scientific experimentation will not disprove Thor, Mithras, Zeus, etc.
Dawkins is under an obligation to show that there is 'no' God as a Christian is to show there 'is' a God.
Why? If that logic is true, you are under an obligation to show me that little pink unicorns floating around the Sun so tiny that we cant' see them don't exist.
We have no obligation to disprove god just as we have no obligation to disprove Isis, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. You are the one making the claim of existence - its your burden of proof.
Dawkins, the scientist, has failed to understand that science actually changes.
Did you even read the book Cat? One of Dawkins' favorite parts in the book is when his colleague is completely proven wrong by a better scientist with greater evidence. Science is constantly changing and Dawkins both recognizes that and appreciates that. The intellectual retardation caused by religious dogma has no place in science.
Now we can't prove that there is a God, but He makes an awful lot of sense of things, therefore there is a very good reason to suppose that God does indeed exist. This is a good and traditional scientific method which shows that God can very well exist.
My god you've been brainwashed. His proof is that he makes sense? Man, I feel bad for you. Such a waste of human intellect.
It stereotypes those who believe in God. It recycles old atheistic positions, many of which are discredited.
The stereotype of Theists being intellectually backward while Atheists hold the highest positions in law, medicine and academia?
I think this thread has done a lot to prove just how correct that stereotype is.
Feel free to use references with your next post. You know, page numbers, interviews, etc. that back up your claims. Your lack of evidence might work when dealing with Theists but we Atheists have a nasty habit of demanding evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 22, 2007 14:05:21 GMT -8
an Did you write this yourself Cataracts? I hope that you copy/pasted it because you have absolutely no god damned idea what you're talking about. In other words, scientific experimentation will never prove or disprove God.Dawkins flat out states this many times in his book and in numerous interviews. Furthermore, scientific experimentation will not disprove Thor, Mithras, Zeus, etc. Dawkins is under an obligation to show that there is 'no' God as a Christian is to show there 'is' a God.Why? If that logic is true, you are under an obligation to show me that little pink unicorns floating around the Sun so tiny that we cant' see them don't exist. We have no obligation to disprove god just as we have no obligation to disprove Isis, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. You are the one making the claim of existence - its your burden of proof. Dawkins, the scientist, has failed to understand that science actually changes.Did you even read the book Cat? One of Dawkins' favorite parts in the book is when his colleague is completely proven wrong by a better scientist with greater evidence. Science is constantly changing and Dawkins both recognizes that and appreciates that. The intellectual retardation caused by religious dogma has no place in science. Now we can't prove that there is a God, but He makes an awful lot of sense of things, therefore there is a very good reason to suppose that God does indeed exist. This is a good and traditional scientific method which shows that God can very well exist.My god you've been brainwashed. His proof is that he makes sense? Man, I feel bad for you. Such a waste of human intellect. It stereotypes those who believe in God. It recycles old atheistic positions, many of which are discredited.The stereotype of Theists being intellectually backward while Atheists hold the highest positions in law, medicine and academia? I think this thread has done a lot to prove just how correct that stereotype is. Feel free to use references with your next post. You know, page numbers, interviews, etc. that back up your claims. Your lack of evidence might work when dealing with Theists but we Atheists have a nasty habit of demanding evidence. Sorry Fighting Falcon, I didn't read "The God Delusion" and I never will read it. Why should I waste my time. The information I received about Dawkins book came from a Catholic Newspaper which I trust. McGrath was interviewed and gave his opinion of Dawson. I realize that the reason you don't care for the new 'default" position for atheists is that they must prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, you and your fellow atheists cannot prove this. Then your position can only be "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". Anything else is a fake and a lie. Dawkins is purported to be a scientist. He's not a philosopher, he's not an historian, religious or otherwise. His whole proof can only be based on scientific evidence of which he has 'none'. What else can he intelligently speak on? I don't care about Thor or Zeus or pink unicorns floating around the sun. They are fake mythological entities. And FF. neither does anyone else believe them. If I stood on the streetcorner and preached the virtues of my gods Thor and Zeus, everyone would laugh at me. However, people don't laugh at the teachings of the True God. They listen. If they are atheists they get angry and start name calling. It is your burden to prove that God doesn't exist. Either do it or admit that you cannot. Anything else that you say is bs. Your statement that people who believe in God are backwards and atheists comprise the academia of the world is total nonsense. Show me where you received such incredibly ignorant information. Was it from Dawkins? I will never waste my time on Dawkins, but I will read McGrath's book, "The Dawson Delusion". By the way, I know all about reference and I wouldn't quote anything Mickey Mouse said either. Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 22, 2007 23:03:18 GMT -8
My god you are so lost. I don't know why I keep replying to your posts. I just get angry when I see such blatant ignorance but what can I expect from someone so religious.
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 23, 2007 5:39:27 GMT -8
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Dec 4, 2007 1:01:06 GMT -8
My god you are so lost. I don't know why I keep replying to your posts. I just get angry when I see such blatant ignorance but what can I expect from someone so religious. Some things never change. As arrogant as ever, eh? I look back over the years and say "I remember when FF was still humble". |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Dec 4, 2007 9:55:34 GMT -8
The dude didn't even read Dawkins' book (yet still managed to get his name wrong) and still has the balls to criticize it.
I'm the arrogant one? Jesus Christ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Apr 5, 2008 15:31:32 GMT -8
The dude didn't even read Dawkins' book (yet still managed to get his name wrong) and still has the balls to criticize it. I'm the arrogant one? Jesus Christ.... Well, you didn't read McGrath's critique, so what's the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 5, 2008 19:36:36 GMT -8
You waited 4 months to post that? Glad you put so much insight into your response.....
Yea, I've read and listened to Alister McGrath. There's absolutely nothing in his writings or debates with Richard Dawkins to cause me to change my mind. A Christian theologian has no business challenging the world's leading Evolutionary Biologist on the theory of evolution. McGrath needs to go back to playing with his 2000 year old nonsense books, which is where he belongs.
BTW - someone inform Cataracts that McGrath's first name is "Alister" and not "Alistar". What a complete joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Apr 6, 2008 9:20:55 GMT -8
Well, you can tell that I am eager to hear what you have to say on the subject...
McGrath knows more about science than Dawkins knows about theology, (since his book is full of the usual atheist strawman arguments) and he (McGrath) knows more about biochemistry than you ever will, but in your usual arrogance you blow him off as if he was a backwoods preacher.
I doubt that you listened to or read much of him at all.
What is it with you ex-catholics that makes you so bitter?
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 6, 2008 14:13:32 GMT -8
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins know more than you about cosmic and biological evolution, respectively, yet something tells me that you - in all your arrogance - would disagree with them too. Alister McGrath might know more than me about biochemistry but he's one of the very few voices out there challenging the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. When the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd gets a single shred of evidence, then maybe we can have a debate. Until then, they need to sit quietly in the corner.
"What is it with you ex-catholics that makes you so bitter?"
Let me count the ways for my bitterness toward religion - religion is responsible for:
Killing 3,000 of my fellow citizens in one day
Most of the world's violence, destruction, ignorance and stupidity
Slowly destroying scientific research in America
Attempting to make us all dumber by introducing ID into our schools and poisoning the future of our nation
Trying to revert America (and the world) back to the 1st Century, which is where these beliefs came from in the first place.
I'm gonna go ahead and stop there. Take your pick for why I hate religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Apr 6, 2008 15:39:46 GMT -8
Alister McGrath might know more than me about biochemistry but he's one of the very few voices out there challenging the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. He's challenging Dawkins' logic, you idiot. If you'd really read him, you'd know that. Dawkins commits several logical fallacies (as atheists are wont to do) that you are too blind to see - McGrath challenges them. It has nothing to do with "overwhelming evidence" - it has to do with your blind faith in your religion - namely, atheism. What a brainwashed fool - with some serious rage issues, I might add. Are you trying to tell me the Catholic chuch is responsible for the WTC? That's where you came from, the Catholic church, not Islam. And don't tell me that YOUR ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry are from religion, and that the poisoning of our nation caused by intolerance and bigotry like yours is caused by the Catholic church (which is where you came from). Let's see, and I believe it would be the people aligned with YOUR politics (that would be the intolerant left) who want us to drive around in horse drawn carriages, refrain from using nuclear power, want to keep us from becoming energy independent, and send us back to stone age technology. Yeah, that's progress. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 6, 2008 18:47:22 GMT -8
Since you've clearly read The God Delusion, do you care to comment on what logical fallacies Dawkins makes?
As for Atheism being my religion - that's such a stupid comment that I won't even respond.
Denominations and specific religions is simply semantics. All religion takes a rational, sensible and free thinking human being and turns them into a close-minded, ignorant bigot with a desire to turn back the clock on human civilization.
You've been trying to pin this liberal label on me for so long, yet it never works. I don't even care anymore because I know that, in reality, I'm more conservative than you are. If you know of any liberals who support ending all welfare, all forms of taxation, eliminating at least 50% of the federal government and handing back power to the states then let me know.
I'm not "aligned" with any group. I disagree with most of my fellow Atheists just as much as I do Theists because I hate Humanism just as much as I hate religion. They both seek the sacrifice of the Individual for the good of some larger group. You just happen to use the word god while they use the word Society. It's all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Apr 7, 2008 4:36:56 GMT -8
Here's a list of the logical fallacies Dawkins uses - I copied it from another site because I am not in a position to critique him directly. This is not from McGrath, but another philospher. 1. Argument by analogy. This is trying to prove one claim to be true (despite a lack of evidence supporting it) simply because it is similar to another claim which is known to be true. Dawkins claims that Darwinism proves that complicated systems can be created by natural forces. Never mind whether this is proven or not, he then proceeds to argue, by direct analogy, that there will certainly be a Darwinian equivalent to explain how the universe was created. This is simply not a scientific argument, yet Dawkins uses it to explain away the fact that the universe was created with laws unimaginably fine-tuned to allow life to exist.
2. Claims of suppression. Dawkins argues for atheism by constantly referring to how vigorously he has been persecuted. He makes the patently false statement that atheistic scientists are persecuted for their beliefs. I am a scientist myself. I can testify that in scientific circles it is the belief in God which is far more likely to be subject to ridicule, to the point that there are a number of documented cases of professors being fired or refused tenure for their religious beliefs. Such never happens to atheists, at least as far as I know. If Dawkins gets persecuted, and I believe he has received some unwarranted hate-filled attacks, it is at least in part because of his own actions in making personal, vitriolic attacks on Christianity.
3. Quoting other scientists out of context. Dawkins complains, not without cause, that many creationists abuse those they quote, making them say things which they clearly do not believe in at all. This is a standard technique of pseudoscientists. The problem with this is that Dawkins is a blatant perpetrator of this technique as well. Time and time again in The God Delusion he abuses those from whom he quotes.
4. Bogus use of statistics to create a false case for an argument. Dawkins tries to imply cause and effect where there is mere correlation—a tactic unworthy of those who use the scientific method. He states (p. 229) that the more religious states in the United States have higher crime rates, implying that the greater amount of religion in those states is what leads to their higher rate of violence. This is very bad science indeed. Bogus use of statistics is found in several places in The God Delusion (p. 237, 255, 257 and others).
5. Appeals to mysteries and myths. A common technique of pseudoscientists is to refer to as evidence obviously mythological beliefs of ancient peoples or unsolved mysteries about the past. Dawkins is blatantly guilty of this non-scientific argument. For example, he tries to argue by analogy to the work of Julian Jayne, The Bicameral Mind. Interestingly, this is one of the case studies I use in my section on pseudoscience. The bicameral mind is a completely unsupported effort to explain the (supposedly) sudden increase in human knowledge about 2000 BC as being due to some sort of sudden change in human brain chemistry. Dawkins uses this in his completely unfounded attempts to explain how human beings acquired the universal tendency toward believing in absolute moral truth and in a spiritual dimension to life.
This list is not comprehensive. When I teach about pseudoscience, I tell the students that if something quacks like a duck, it may not be a duck, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. The point is that if a scientific claim is accompanied by one or two marks of pseudoscience, perhaps we ought to withhold judgment, but if one finds several, as is the case with Dawkins’ book, then the conclusion is straightforward. The God Delusion is obvious pseudoscience.
Dawkins is guilty of blatantly poor reasoning on almost every page of this book. Some of the logical fallacies I teach about in my Intro to Scientific Thought course include the following—used extensively by Dawkins.
1. Ad Hominem. When making some sort of an argument, if one has a relatively weak case, it is common to resort to attacking, not the argument of your opponent, but your opponent. The quotes above are sufficient to show that Dawkins does this repeatedly. He brazenly and unfairly attacks the character and motives of believers in the book. He calls Mother Theresa a sanctimonious hypocrite (p. 292). Dawkins uses words such as barking mad (p. 253), sado-masochistic (p. 253), viciously unpleasant (p. 253), and infantile (363) to describe Christians’ belief in God in general. This is not the sort of technique used by people who have a solid, convincing argument to make.
2. No True Scotsman. This fallacious argument goes something like this. No true Scotsman would do such and such. Person A does such and such. Therefore, person A is not a Scotsman. Dawkins repeatedly states that no true scientist will accept even the possibility that God’s finger somehow has intervened in the course of nature. The implication is that it is not scientific to believe in such things and that those who do so are not true scientists. If this is true, then Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lord Kelvin and an almost unlimited list of the most eminent scientists are not good scientists.
3. Begging the Question. Begging the question involves assuming the answer to a question as a precondition to asking the question. Dawkins reasons that anyone who believes in a supernatural force is, by definition, not scientific, and therefore, science proves that there is no supernatural force.
4. Straw Man Argument. This involves creating a completely exaggerated and unrealistic picture of what your opponent believes or stands for and then arguing against the “Straw Man” rather than against what your opponent is actually saying. It is a great way to avoid facing the actual questions at hand. On almost every page of The God Delusion Dawkins describes the worst cases of Religious closed-mindedness and hypocricy. Admittedly, there are a good number of extremely bad things which have been done in the name of religion. Admittedly, there are some in the young earth creationist camp whose “science” is completely insupportable. Dawkins tries to paint all believers as being either like this or one slippery slope step away from being like this. He literally does not concede a single positive contribution to human society or culture from religious people. Even the most hardened enemy of Christianity, if he or she is honest, will admit that people of faith have made positive contributions to humanity as a result of their having faith.
I could continue, but hopefully the case is made. As an atheist friend of mine admitted, “Dawkins creates a lot more heat than light.” In fact, even the great majority of famous atheists and agnostics have either distanced themselves from Dawkins or outright repudiated him for his ungracious and unscientific attacks on faith. For example, Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist and no friend of religion panned The God Delusion:
tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel is unimpressed as well if the quote from him below is any indication:
“Richard Dawkins, the most prominent and accomplished scientific writer of our time, is convinced that religion is the enemy of science. Not just fundamentalist or fanatical or extremist religion, but all religion that admits faith as a ground of belief and asserts the existence of God. In his new book, he attacks religion with all the weapons at his disposal, and as a result the book is a very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument...” - Thomas Nagel
Alister McGrath provides one of the most cogent critiques of The God Delusion. He is a former atheist who became an Anglican.
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770
Andrew Brown, a British reviewer and sympathizer with the anti-religious movement is unimpressed:
“Incurious and rambling, Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism.” [1]
Having given the reader an idea of the tone of the book, I will now consider the basic line of reasoning of The God Delusion. Essentially, Dawkins’ argument is that Darwinism has provided solid, irrefutable evidence that the incredible order, variety and complexity of life, which some have seen as evidence for a Creator, can be explained, by a random, natural process. It is not my intention in this essay to disprove this contention (some material is found in my book Is There a God? . Let us, for the sake of gracious argument, concede the point (although I do not believe this for a moment). To be honest, Dawkins has provided some strong arguments against certain points made by the Intelligent Design camp. The man is a very accomplished scientist, whose grasp of the evidence for evolution a serious Christian apologist ought to at least give good attention to.
The problem with his argument is that Dawkins proceeds to conclude that he has thus, by analogy, proven that science can explain all the order in nature, as well as the admittedly (even by Dawkins) amazing coincidence of all the important constants of nature being perfectly tuned so that life can exist. As all atheists do, he argues for the infinite universe theory, hoping that some sort of Darwinism of universes has acted to produce such a finely tuned universe for us to live in. I am not exaggerating. Dawkins proposes some sort of Darwinian natural-selection-like theory of how our universe was created. One thing is clear. He is outside his area of expertise. Another thing is clear. Dawkins is out on a very long speculative limb here. His arguments against the Strong Anthropic Principle (the idea that the universe we live in shows strong evidence that it was designed so that advanced life forms can exist) are rambling, speculative and completely unconvincing, at least in my opinion.
It is interesting that Dawkins proposes an analogy to Darwinism for cosmology, but he chooses to absolutely ignore what is probably the strongest argument of all for a Creator, which is the existence of life. His silence on how life itself came about by random chemical events is deafening. There is a reason for this. To propose a theory that natural selection of chemicals might have the ability to produce a living thing is nothing short of ludicrous. Even Dawkins does not have the audacity to propose an analogy to Darwinism as a means to create life from inorganic matter. Because he cannot mount a workable argument, he simply ignores the issue of the creation of life. I can only suppose that he hoped we would not notice this gaping hole.
After providing what is, at least for me, an unsatisfactory explanation of the fine tuned universe and completely ignoring the creation of life, Dawkins simply declares his job done. God does not exist, and anyone who does not agree is deluded, infantile, unenlightened and so forth. This leads him to his second thesis, which is clearly why he has written the book. Dawkins argues that not only is religion wrong on the existence of God, it is the single most destructive element ever introduced into human culture. It is an unfortunate by-product of the evolution of the human brain. He proposes that the tendency to believe in a purposeful life, in a higher power, in an absolute moral good, is simply the by-product of evolutionary forces in human brain development. At this point, Dawkins brings to bear a number of dubious pseudoscientific explanations of brain evolution. He concludes that the idea of belief in an absolute moral standard (such as it is wrong to lie or evil to kill another human) is just an artifact, and a dangerous one at that. He argues that the only way to arrive at a correct ethic is to use the scientific method. He also contradicts himself again and again, because he calls religionists evil. There is no absolute moral law, except the one that belief in an absolute moral law is immoral.
Dawkins lives in a Pollyanna world in which scientists will make us better and better. Human beings are slowly but steadily evolving to a more enlightened state in which they will reject all ideas of good and evil, yet will treat one another more and more humanely. As evidence, he provides a litany of the evils perpetrated by religion. He reserves a particular vitriol for Roman Catholicism. To be honest, his list of the evils done in the name of religion include a number of examples of some of the worst of human behavior, which has indeed been motivated by religion. What he does, though, is completely ignore even the possibility that human belief in God has produced any good in the world. He has the gall to imply that anyone who does not completely disavow God is part and parcel with Hitler (who he claims, by the way, was a Christian), the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This absolutely irresponsible hate-mongering on the part of Dawkins is what made it extremely difficult to even read the book to the end.Now, as to the "liberal" label: If you're going to stand up and be counted with the enemies of religion (and by dint of definition, freedom of religion) then you might as well be one of them. I thought you were too smart to be brainwashed in a mere four years in indoctrination center. My mistake. Of course, now it's too late for you to learn anything new, because you KNOW everything already. You keep telling me that. And you and Dawkins are not supporting "science" - you are promoting your own religion - "scientism", which is a religion disguised as science. A REAL "free thinker" would know that. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 7, 2008 12:35:50 GMT -8
I copied it from another site because I am not in a position to critique him directly.
Because you never read The God Delusion, right? See - I'll openly admit that I never read The Dawkins Delusion and probably never will. I have listened to McGrath debate Dawkins but I won't address the counter-arguments in TDD because I never read it. Yet you and Cataracts have no trouble criticizing a work that you've never read before. You were talking about humility earlier, I believe?
If you're going to stand up and be counted with the enemies of religion (and by dint of definition, freedom of religion) then you might as well be one of them. I thought you were too smart to be brainwashed in a mere four years in indoctrination center. My mistake.
Typical Collectivist group-think mindset. But I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from a Theist.
And you and Dawkins are not supporting "science" - you are promoting your own religion - "scientism", which is a religion disguised as science.
A REAL "free thinker" would know that.
Dawkins and I share many viewpoints on why religion is evil. Beyond that, we have nothing in common. He supports Humanism, which I already stated I'm in full opposition to. But keep trying to pin Humanism/"Scientism" as my religion. It's been going very well so far.
I know you try very hard to fit me into a certain group. I know its impossible for you to understand how someone could honestly form their own opinion without talking points from leaders in their organization. But I suggest you try it once - next time without having to rely on quotes from other people and copy/pasting.
|
|
